A/55/280/Add.2 No. 29 of 1972, changed the nomenclature to Vested Property Act, without altering the content of the law. According to information from non-governmental sources, the Government of Bangladesh has, within the framework of this law, taken possession of property declared to belong to the enemy, by appropriating the property of members of the Hindu minority who had migrated to India, or by appropriating the property of people who were heirs or co-owners. Furthermore, to this day, interest groups and individuals continue to appropriate property belonging to the Hindu community, and indeed to do so with the complicity of the authorities and of influential people. In a significant number of cases, Hindus are dispossessed of their property, even when they are the legal owners of such assets. According to non-governmental sources, Clause 2 of Order No. 29 of 1972 states that none of these grounds may be challenged by a court. Furthermore, neither the Order nor the Vested Property Act has ever been revised. 32. According to the non-governmental sources, at least two million acres of land have been seized from Hindu landowners under the Vested Property Act. This law represents a major source of insecurity and of human rights violations against the Hindu community. It also affects the northern Hurukh/Oroan tribes, which are not Hindu, but are perceived as such because of their Hindu roots. In the view of non-governmental organizations, it is therefore clear that the Vested Property Act is detrimental to minorities and to the religious harmony of Bangladesh. 33. In December 1998, the Government set up a parliamentary subcommittee under the Ministry of Land, to repeal the Vested Property Act and reinstate the vested property to the original owners. This committee has prepared a bill, which is due to be presented to Parliament. It appears, however, that this bill would present serious problems. According to the non-governmental sources, the bill provides that properties legally vested under the ownership of the Government and those declared to be enemy or vested property after 16 February 1969 will not be considered as vested property after the said period. Most Hindu property, however, was declared vested property after that date. The bill also states that the proprietorship status of the vested property will not be challenged if the property was transferred to the Government, a government institution, or to a private individual, has been sold or has been handed over permanently by the Government at the directives of a court. It will not even be possible to challenge such cases in court. According to the non-governmental organizations consulted, these provisions are contrary to the spirit and objectives of the bill. The bill also provides that if the original owners do not submit their ownership documents to a court within 180 days following promulgation of the law, their property will be acquired by the Government. This time period is considered too short by the Hindu community. Lastly, the bill provides that in the event of the decease of the original owner, rights of inheritance shall apply in accordance with Hindu religious personal laws. Hindu women would therefore be automatically excluded from inheritance, since Hindu religious personal laws do not accord any rights of inheritance to women. The bill, which is still in the study phase, therefore presents major difficulties. III. Influence of the political sphere on freedom of religion or belief A. Consultations with the authorities 34. Most of the official sources consulted — the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Minister for the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Secretary for the Interior, and the Chief Justice — said that the Government was in favour of secularism, and operated within the framework of the Constitution, which was based on the principles of non-discrimination and freedom of religion and belief. They believed that Bangladesh was a country characterized by harmony among the various religious communities, and especially between the Muslim majority and non-Muslim minorities. 35. The Minister of Religious Affairs noted that freedom of religion and of religious practice was guaranteed under constitutional and penal laws, as well as under religious personal laws, and that each community had a right to define its own religious institutions. He said that the State would not interfere in communities’ internal religious affairs. He added that public funds were allocated to these communities (including the Islamic Foundation, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians) and that these funds were regulated by Government ordinances (for example, the Hindu Religious Welfare Trust Ordinance of 1983, amended by the Ordinances of 1985, 1986 and 1989; the Buddhist Religious Welfare Trust Ordinance 1983). 7